Glow In The Dark Dog

[Jigsaw]

Poor pup.

http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2011/07/korean-scientists-create-3m-glow-in-the-dark-dog/

A cloned beagle named Tegon is the world’s first transgenic dog: her body produces a fluorescent protein that glows in ultraviolet light. Researchers at Seoul National University report that the genetically modified dog glows fluorescent green under ultraviolet light after consuming a doxycycline antibiotic.

The team, led by Byeong-Chun Lee of Seoul National University in South Korea, created the dogs. “The creation of Tegon opens new horizons since the gene injected to make the dog glow can be substituted with genes that trigger fatal human diseases,” Lee said in an interview with Yonhap news agency.

Lee feels that because there are at least 268 illnesses that humans and dogs have in common, the use of dogs that artificially display such symptoms could aid treatment research for human diseases. Dogs metabolize drugs in the same way as humans – making the testing of treatments more transferable to humans.

Already known in the scientific community for his earlier achievements, Lee and fellow researcher Woo Suk Hwang are the duo credited with creating the world’s first cloned dog in 2005.

[Atanquin]

I hate the use of animals in experiments. What right do we have to do that to an animal what right do we have to put toxic substances into their body without them knowing what we are doing. It's not fair it's not like they are doing it voluntary we force them.

[GeckoTree]

I remember reading about glow in the dark dogs years ago

I agree, can't see the point, nor in cloning for that matter.

[fuzzy82]

The photo is terrible, could be photoshopped.

I don't see anything wrong with it though, the dog wouldn't care that it glows in the dark. As long as they are treated decently then it's all good.

[Weasels]

I hate the use of animals in experiments. What right do we have to do that to an animal what right do we have to put toxic substances into their body without them knowing what we are doing. It's not fair it's not like they are doing it voluntary we force them.

I'm not defending the use of animals in experiments generally, but the green fluorescent protein that they put in these animals is a naturally occuring gene from jellyfish, so not toxic. Although I haven't read up on this specific case, the insertion of this gene would have been at the single-cell stage, so the animal would have developed normally until they put antibody in it. I can't see how the green would affect it other than preventing a good night's sleep. The conditions these animals are kept in is another matter, however.

[GeckoTree]

Again what is the point, high end novelty pet market for people with too much coin? A glow in the dark dog really lol.

Some real smarties about, wish they'd turn themselves glow in the dark to be a beacon to other dickwads. Light up a freak show in a forest somewhere maybe they could mate.

[Weasels]

Again what is the point, high end novelty pet market for people with too much coin? A glow in the dark dog really lol.

Some real smarties about, wish they'd turn themselves glow in the dark to be a beacon to other dickwads. Light up a freak show in a forest somewhere maybe they could mate.

At the risk of being totally boring, the point is just as a marker to show that the gene has succesfully inserted into the cells and is expressing protein. The next step is then to take out the glowing bit and replace it with genes that cause disease in both dogs and humans. For example, if they create dogs with a gene that causes asthma (totally random example), they can then use those dogs to test medicines that may then be used to treat the disease in both dogs and people.

Since the dog cost something like $3 mill to develop, it's definitely not for the pet market.

[Maddy]

Since the dog cost something like $3 mill to develop, it's definitely not for the pet market.

Exactly.

A lot of people complain about medical testing involving animals but the reality is, without that testing, we wouldn't be able to treat a huge number of diseases.

[GeckoTree]

I know, first came the glow mice, then the glow cats, then these glow dogs in 09, lets glow people next year would be really cool at a rave under black light.

[Atanquin]

Since the dog cost something like $3 mill to develop, it's definitely not for the pet market.

Exactly.

A lot of people complain about medical testing involving animals but the reality is, without that testing, we wouldn't be able to treat a huge number of diseases.

But why use animals it's not like they have a say in the matter it's not our place to treat animals as our play things. If they could talk do you really think they would agree to what we do to them? Yes they have helped with science but I would never like to use anything that has been tested on animals, most of them are healthy until we give them cancer or what ever it is we are testing then they die some times really painfully!!!!

[Are You Serious Jo]

But why use animals it's not like they have a say in the matter it's not our place to treat animals as our play things. If they could talk do you really think they would agree to what we do to them? Yes they have helped with science but I would never like to use anything that has been tested on animals, most of them are healthy until we give them cancer or what ever it is we are testing then they die some times really painfully!!!!

Unless people step forward and willingly allow themselves to be test subjects for new drugs then animals are needed. If you have ever taken anything prescribed by a doctor or bought painkillers etc then you have taken something tested on animals. I'm not a supported of inhumane research, but unless we give up modern medicine or people agree to be tested then we need animals in medical research.

[Weasels]

Also the medical research findings flow into veterinary science, so animals do benefit as well. It's a thorny problem, because whenever there is a drug on the market that causes problems in humans there is huge uproar and massive lawsuits, so you can see why the companies would want to test as thoroughly as possible. Essentially, most people do value human life and comfort over that of animals, and as long as that is the case animals testing will continue.

[Maddy]

But why use animals it's not like they have a say in the matter it's not our place to treat animals as our play things. If they could talk do you really think they would agree to what we do to them? Yes they have helped with science but I would never like to use anything that has been tested on animals, most of them are healthy until we give them cancer or what ever it is we are testing then they die some times really painfully!!!!

Unless people step forward and willingly allow themselves to be test subjects for new drugs then animals are needed. If you have ever taken anything prescribed by a doctor or bought painkillers etc then you have taken something tested on animals. I'm not a supported of inhumane research, but unless we give up modern medicine or people agree to be tested then we need animals in medical research.

The funny thing is, you'd get "Oh noes, I couldn't possibly take some untested drug, I might get sick. Maybe first we can test it on.. oh.. wait.."

People are happy to protest animal testing but you never see them turning down their insulin, their penicilin or a surgery to save their own lives. Some of them even have excuses for why they can use them (but no one else can). Quoth some idiot who works for PETA.. (and requires daily insulin) "I need my life to fight for the lives of animals."

[Cordelia]

But why use animals it's not like they have a say in the matter it's not our place to treat animals as our play things. If they could talk do you really think they would agree to what we do to them? Yes they have helped with science but I would never like to use anything that has been tested on animals, most of them are healthy until we give them cancer or what ever it is we are testing then they die some times really painfully!!!!

Unless people step forward and willingly allow themselves to be test subjects for new drugs then animals are needed. If you have ever taken anything prescribed by a doctor or bought painkillers etc then you have taken something tested on animals. I'm not a supported of inhumane research, but unless we give up modern medicine or people agree to be tested then we need animals in medical research.

The funny thing is, you'd get "Oh noes, I couldn't possibly take some untested drug, I might get sick. Maybe first we can test it on.. oh.. wait.."

People are happy to protest animal testing but you never see them turning down their insulin, their penicilin or a surgery to save their own lives. Some of them even have excuses for why they can use them (but no one else can). Quoth some idiot who works for PETA.. (and requires daily insulin) "I need my life to fight for the lives of animals."

That would be Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA. Even though there is synthetic insulin available, she CHOOSES to use insulin derived from pigs... who are intensively farmed, housed permanently inside and killed for there pancreas'. She's a hypocrite of the highest order.

[Maddy]

But why use animals it's not like they have a say in the matter it's not our place to treat animals as our play things. If they could talk do you really think they would agree to what we do to them? Yes they have helped with science but I would never like to use anything that has been tested on animals, most of them are healthy until we give them cancer or what ever it is we are testing then they die some times really painfully!!!!

Unless people step forward and willingly allow themselves to be test subjects for new drugs then animals are needed. If you have ever taken anything prescribed by a doctor or bought painkillers etc then you have taken something tested on animals. I'm not a supported of inhumane research, but unless we give up modern medicine or people agree to be tested then we need animals in medical research.

The funny thing is, you'd get "Oh noes, I couldn't possibly take some untested drug, I might get sick. Maybe first we can test it on.. oh.. wait.."

People are happy to protest animal testing but you never see them turning down their insulin, their penicilin or a surgery to save their own lives. Some of them even have excuses for why they can use them (but no one else can). Quoth some idiot who works for PETA.. (and requires daily insulin) "I need my life to fight for the lives of animals."

That would be Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA. Even though there is synthetic insulin available, she CHOOSES to use insulin derived from pigs... who are intensively farmed, housed permanently inside and killed for there pancreas'. She's a hypocrite of the highest order.

From what I recall, it was one of her minions, although I forget the woman's name.

And.. found it.. Mary Beth Sweetland.

From the comments to the PETA blog, I think we can assume that Newkirk is now aware that her painkillers were, in fact, tested on animals. So can we assume that she will now refuse (“send back”) any more painkillers? Or will she, like PETA Vice President and insulin (tested on dogs, rabbits and mice) dependent diabetic Mary Beth Sweetland, continue to enjoy the benefits of animal testing while supporting terrorist acts on the scientists who provide them?

From here- http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/11/peta-hypocrisy.html

[Aztec Gold]

OMG that's crazy.. Poor dog

[lovemymutts]

IMO there are things in this world which should not be messed with. Genes are one of those things. I believe we tread into dangerous waters when we start modifying genes, creating clones etc. Just leave it be.